Opinion
530299
04-23-2020
In the Matter of Jason HUNTLEY, Appellant, v. Tina M. STANFORD, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.
Jason Huntley, Otisville, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sarah L. Rosenbluth of counsel), for respondent.
Jason Huntley, Otisville, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sarah L. Rosenbluth of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner currently is serving a prison term of 17 years to life upon his conviction of murder in the second degree. After petitioner reappeared before the Board of Parole in January 2019, his request for discretionary release was denied, and the Board ordered that petitioner be held for an additional 18 months. Rather than pursue an administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board's determination. Supreme Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss based upon petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, prompting this appeal.
"[O]ne who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law" ( Matter of Guilderland Print., Inc. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance , 163 A.D.3d 1318, 1320, 83 N.Y.S.3d 692 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Griffiss Local Dev. Corp. v. Gardner , 103 A.D.3d 1276, 1277, 960 N.Y.S.2d 284 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 856, 2013 WL 2395642 [2013] ; Matter of Sabino v. DiNapoli , 90 A.D.3d 1392, 1393, 935 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2011] ). Although petitioner concedes that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing the instant proceeding, he contends that a recognized exception to the exhaustion doctrine applies here – namely, that "the issue to be determined is purely a question of law" ( Matter of Hudson Riv. Val., LLC v. Empire Zone Designation Bd. , 115 A.D.3d 1035, 1038, 981 N.Y.S.2d 471 [2014] ). We disagree. "Petitioner's claim that the Board failed to properly apply the relevant statutes [and accompanying regulations] to his application for release presented factual issues that are reviewable on an administrative appeal" ( Matter of Foster v. New York State Parole Bd. , 131 A.D.3d 1332, 1333, 16 N.Y.S.3d 633 [2015] [citations omitted] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.